Until quite recently, appointed Canadian Senators held their seats for life. Now they are compelled to retire at age 75. This is trumpeted as a great advance for democracy.

Let’s get this straight. Where else in the world do unelected public office holders enjoy such benefits?

Dictatorships and a dwindling number of monarchies come to mind.

Far fetched comparisons? No. Because in Canada democracy has not advanced to the stage where its citizens are free to elect members of their Senate, members who have to submit themselves to the verdict of the people at regular intervals.

One of the little publicly known courtesies extended to Second Chamber appointees on Parliament Hill is the style of address accorded them. "Good morning, Senator". "Good afternoon, Senator." "Good night, Senator."

Greeted with a steady diet of "Senator", an unelected office holder could well become delusional, despite early good intentions, and feel he/she has all the good qualities that elevate him/her above the necessity of undergoing anything so vulgar as an election.

Ask a Senator a simple question: "Senator, do you think you should hold unelected office in Parliament for life, or age 75, whichever comes sooner?"

It will test the mettle of each respondent.

You yourself know what an honest answer might be. However, don’t be surprised to be met with a waffle-like response: "It’s what the law says."

To paraphrase Mr. Bumble: "If the law says that, the law is a ass--a idiot!"

Of which more anon.

Meantime, you can let your views be known to your elected representatives in the House of Commons by going to the Members List. Try it. You’ll like it. And you will be doing something useful.